Forensic evidence

[The Night Owl]

I've been in a few myself and this is slightly off topic but there is a shady underground in the circuit. People wouldn't believe what goes on behind the scenes. And the bribery of judges with money and some girls give them "special favors" so they'd win. Its sad and disgusting but as I said, some act as if its a matter of life or death to win and take it far to seriously also putting themselves in debt and

 

[The Night Owl]

Having to go bankrupt over it.

 

[aussiesheila2]

So you also believe that a woman who won numerous female beauty contests did so in spite of having forearms with hairs on them that resembled hairs in a Caucasian male's pubic area? You must because that is where the hair was originally stated by CBI as having come from. It is only since 2000 when it was found not to have matched John Ramsey that it morphed into an 'ancillary' hair and therefore likely to have come from Patsy. It appears that BPD lost interest in checking out exactly who it came from and just passed it off as one of Patsy's hairs IMO[

U don't think its possible she waxed or shaved or had laser hair removal? Ive known a ton of pageant contestants and they have the weirdest beauty rituals. They do anything to gain an edge or upper hand over their competion. Some take it far to serious and go overboard and into the deep end. U'd be amazed at what they do. Pure craziness I tell ya. Lol=)
l

OK, Night Owl, so I believe you - maxi waxing and laser hair removal is rife on the pageant circuit. I can believe that

Now to relate this to the JBR case - we are really trying to assess whether it is likely at the time of the murder that in December 1996, that Patsy had forearm hairs that could have been mistaken by CBI investigators for male pubic hairs. OK, so for the sake of argument let's say Patsy was one of those rare females who did have really thick dark forearm hairs but used to wax them during her pageant years. Then she must have been waxing/lasering them even up to the time of the murder, or at least up until the summer of 1996 because I don't think there are any photos of her in sleeveless outfits that show thick dark hairs on her forearms. Even if she had stopped doing this by December, and they had grown in the 4 months since she lasted waxed/lasered and then had dropped one on JonBenet's white blanket and that was the one CBI examined, they would have been able to see the end of the hair and it would have shown signs that the end had been cut/lasered whatever, not the sort of things that most males were into doing with their pubic hairs in 1996 IMO.

The reason I am going on and on about this is the absurdity of it all - BPD trying to have the public believe the story that the hair from the white blanket was a female ancilliary hair after it having initially been mistaken for a male pubic hair by CBI forensic scientists who were experienced in hair analysis and would have examined the hair microscopically. To think that those experts couldn't do such a simple identification and get it right is kind of ridiculous if you ask me. I think that statement about a CBI technician being initially mistaken in thinking it was a male pubic hair is just BS. I think it was a male Caucasian pubic hair just like CBI initially said, but BPD just didn't want it to be a male pubic hair after they discovered it didn't match John so they leaked a false story about a dumb CBI technician.

 

[DeeDee249]

I believe the first description of the hair as a pubic hair may have come from a visual inspection. Later physical analysis determined it was a female hair belonging to Patsy.

 

[aussiesheila2]

I believe the first description of the hair as a pubic hair may have come from a visual inspection. Later physical analysis determined it was a female hair belonging to Patsy.

I would have thought the visual inspection by CBI was a microscopic visual inspection - there are differences between pubic and ancillary hairs (especially female ancillary hairs) that are pretty obvious microscopically. Thus I do not think mistakenly identifying something as a pubic hair when it is actually a female ancillary hair is ever likely to to occur.

Also I take back what I said about it being a 'MALE pubic hair' in my previous posts, I've had the chance to review my notes and I think it was only ever referred to a 'pubic hair'. My apologies.

Another thought - if you read The Bonita Files you will see that it is mentioned there that there were two hairs found on the little white blanket - a pubic hair and a forearm hair. I'm thinking - maybe it was the forearm hair that was determined to be Patsy's. I'm pretty sure the owner of the pubic hair was never identified. It was reported that it did not belong to John or Patsy way back in about 2000. This was stated by Steve Thomas in his book. After that we heard no more about the pubic hair, all we ever heard about was this forearm hair that was determined to be Patsy's

 

[otg]

Actually, here is what the Bonita Papers say about the two hairs (bearing in mind that this was written from notes taken early in the investigation):

The white blanket found with JonBenet’s body and the swabs of substances recovered during the autopsy were examined for semen. Serological studies did not find the presence of semen on any of these items. However, two hairs were recovered from the blanket. One of the hairs, identified as a Caucasian pubic hair, did not match samples from John, Patsy or John Andrew. A second hair, was also identified as human head hair several inches long, was also examined but no conclusions were reached as to the source.


​

The DNA samples extracted from the fingernails and the panties, and the two hairs were sent to CellMark Diagnostics, Inc. in Germantown, Maryland for further analysis.
​

This account does not mention here or later the results from CellMark’s testing, so I would guess it was written from notes taken before the results came back. I don’t know which of these two hairs was later reported to be an “ancillary” (or sometimes an “axillary&#8221 hair. For me, it’s hard to imagine either of the two hairs described here as being from almost anyone’s forearm. If it is the one described as possibly a “Caucasian pubic hair”, it would be unusual for it to be the type found on most people’s forearm. The other hair is described as a “human head hair several inches long”, and again is unlikely to be typical of hairs found on anyone’s forearm.

Either way, with no more information than we have, I think it’s hard to put much weight into the meaning or implications of these two hairs.

 

[questfortrue]

I believe the first description of the hair as a pubic hair may have come from a visual inspection. Later physical analysis determined it was a female hair belonging to Patsy.

Hi, DeeDee249,
Straying away from the CBI analysis for a moment, wondering about the mention of mitochondrial DNA.
It’s my thought the reason the FBI took the test another step further in identification was to pinpoint this hair to the family - PR (or people with whom she shared the same mitochondrial DNA.) The inclusion in Kolar’s report about mitochondrial DNA was something which did catch my eye. While he was just a child, BR can be seen in photos with arm hair even at the young age of 10 years. If PR wore her jacket that evening to the party, and fibers from that jacket were in the paint tray and on the ligature cord, would it make it more improbable her arms (or if it's axillary, her back or underarm) were exposed and more probable the mitochondrial DNA may point to “the elephant in the room”? IDK . . . And JMHO

 

[bettybaby00]

Another subtle nod in BRs direction, which is very plausible IMO

 

[ukrberserker23]

I was looking at the autopsy photos again the other day. The mark on JBR's neck looked like a cigarette burn to me. Could be wrong, but look again, and let me know what you guys think.

 

[DeeDee249]

I was looking at the autopsy photos again the other day. The mark on JBR's neck looked like a cigarette burn to me. Could be wrong, but look again, and let me know what you guys think.

The mark on her NECK does not look like a cigarette burn, but I have always thought the small, round abrasion on her cheek under her ear and the ones on her back looked like cigarette burns.

 

[ukrberserker23]

The one I saw on the right side lower neck does to me. The red one on front of neck is something different. What I saw was almost perfectly round, and reddish brown in color. About like a large mole. You may be right though.

 

[elannia]

Did I read somewhere there was no prints on the duct tape? How is that possible if JR took the tape off (like he said) when he found her? And also (not accusing btw) FW went back down and examined the tape as well

 

[Mama2JML]

Did I read somewhere there was no prints on the duct tape? How is that possible if JR took the tape off (like he said) when he found her? And also (not accusing btw) FW went back down and examined the tape as well

Often, fingerprint analysis does not yield conclusive findings:

"Just because someone touches a surface does not guarantee that a latent print will be deposited. Here are some reasons a print may not be deposited:

-The person may be wearing gloves.

-The person’s hands may be very dry, which means there is little or no sweat or oils coating the ridges. Therefore, the ridge detail won’t reliably transfer to the surface.

-Rougher surfaces are less conducive to receiving latent impressions than smooth surfaces.​

Even if a print is deposited, it may not become a useful piece of evidence. Here are some reasons why:

-It may not be discovered.

-It may not survive, due to environmental factors. For example, prints deposited outdoors in arid climates may not survive long because latent print residue is approximately 98% water.

-If a particular surface or item is collected/packaged improperly, any latent prints may be destroyed.

-The print may be found but not contain a sufficient amount of information to be useful. For example, it could be a partial print, a smeared print, or from a part of the hand for which a known print is not available."​

​

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/prints/faqs.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UKGuy]

Hi, DeeDee249,
Straying away from the CBI analysis for a moment, wondering about the mention of mitochondrial DNA.
It’s my thought the reason the FBI took the test another step further in identification was to pinpoint this hair to the family - PR (or people with whom she shared the same mitochondrial DNA.) The inclusion in Kolar’s report about mitochondrial DNA was something which did catch my eye. While he was just a child, BR can be seen in photos with arm hair even at the young age of 10 years. If PR wore her jacket that evening to the party, and fibers from that jacket were in the paint tray and on the ligature cord, would it make it more improbable her arms (or if it's axillary, her back or underarm) were exposed and more probable the mitochondrial DNA may point to “the elephant in the room”? IDK . . . And JMHO

questfortrue,
BBM: Yes this is its function and other speculation is redundant. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother, and is the source for the EVE hypothesis: we are all descended from one woman who survived some ancient catastrophe, consequently humans are less varied in their gene distribution, whereas some other mammals have a larger distribution of genes. In this context check out Lake Toba in your favorite search engine. Mitochondrial DNA was used in the Danielle van Dam case, notably where hairs were introduced as forensic evidence, and could presumably be sourced back to Danielle's mother as conclusive proof Danielle was present with David Westerfield.

So if the hair belongs to PR whats the big deal she left forensic evidence all over the place and everyone knows she is a prime suspect, i.e. it does not need to be referenced.

Consider this then because if its PR's Mitochondrial DNA, i.e. Nedra Paughs, we can rule out JR as the source. Also if the case is BDI and BR has a non-disclosure order then you might wish to identify the hair a belonging to the family but to avoid identification cite only the Mitochondrial DNA to achieve this end?

.

 

[ukrberserker23]

Well, I Googled up images of stun gun marks to see if it matched what was on JBR. It does, sad to say. I thought maybe the one mark on the right side neck was possibly a cigarette burn. It closely matched what I found for images of stun gun marks. But IIRC, JR had a manual for a stun gun in the house. Also the one mark on JBR's leg from an earlier photo, shows the same thing. Poor girl was no better than a dog with a shock collar on. Maybe the scream was caused by the stun gun, not the head blow. Don't know.

 

[Casketkitten]

Well, I Googled up images of stun gun marks to see if it matched what was on JBR. It does, sad to say. I thought maybe the one mark on the right side neck was possibly a cigarette burn. It closely matched what I found for images of stun gun marks. But IIRC, JR had a manual for a stun gun in the house. Also the one mark on JBR's leg from an earlier photo, shows the same thing. Poor girl was no better than a dog with a shock collar on. Maybe the scream was caused by the stun gun, not the head blow. Don't know.

I know that I am coming in late to the conversation so forgive me if this has come up before; but didn't Kolar, (FF), state his belief that the marks were from JBR having laid on/struggled on top of loose train tracks down in the train room? That the prongs from the tracks could leave much the same marks as a stun gun could have left.

 

[DeeDee249]

I know that I am coming in late to the conversation so forgive me if this has come up before; but didn't Kolar, (FF), state his belief that the marks were from JBR having laid on/struggled on top of loose train tracks down in the train room? That the prongs from the tracks could leave much the same marks as a stun gun could have left.

It has been stated that the marks seem to match train tracks found in the basement. From a forensic point of view, nothing has been matched definitively to the marks on JB. Exhuming her body and testing the marks against the track, a stun gun, or to see if they were burns was something that could have been done, but wasn't. At this point, it is only conjecture that the marks were made by tracks, stun gun, or anything else. Yes, Kolar does lean towards the track having made the marks.

 

[ukrberserker23]

I checked on railroad track sizes, and none of the fit the apparent size of the marks. Only one that has round prongs is "O" gauge. The prongs are about 1/8 inch in diameter. Too small to make the marks. Stun gun is definitely looking like the most likely instrument.

 

[elannia]

Well, I Googled up images of stun gun marks to see if it matched what was on JBR. It does, sad to say. I thought maybe the one mark on the right side neck was possibly a cigarette burn. It closely matched what I found for images of stun gun marks. But IIRC, JR had a manual for a stun gun in the house. Also the one mark on JBR's leg from an earlier photo, shows the same thing. Poor girl was no better than a dog with a shock collar on. Maybe the scream was caused by the stun gun, not the head blow. Don't know.

I also think it was a stun gun(or cigarette) on her face... what else could have made that circular burn like on her cheek. And the question who was smoking? And there is only one place where as on her back there are two marks. Looking at those autopsy pics make me sick. The train tracks could have made those on the back, but I definitely think it was a cigarette on the cheek. Someone must have really had a fit of rage to do all this to that poor girl

 

[midwest mama]

I also think it was a stun gun(or cigarette) on her face... what else could have made that circular burn like on her cheek. And the question who was smoking? And there is only one place where as on her back there are two marks. Looking at those autopsy pics make me sick. The train tracks could have made those on the back, but I definitely think it was a cigarette on the cheek. Someone must have really had a fit of rage to do all this to that poor girl

Yes, and a "fit of rage" that did not end quickly. It didn't explode and then die down, which one might expect if only one of JB's worst injuries had occurred. This was a sadistic, time-involved application of heinous acts of injury:

1. Head bash
2. At least one, I believe 2, strangulations. One with a device that is known for being lethal.
3. Sexual contact that left bruising and blood.
4. Body injuries (that we know about) which left
bruises
scratches
rust colored abrasions, various
rust colored/bruised circular punctures and abrasions
a deep ligature furrow
scalp contusion
skull fractures
temporal lobe contusions
tan-tinged secretions of body fluid
red, watery secretions of body fluid

IMO, if this had been simply a domestic accident, how would we such a variety of different injuries, which usually signal "intent", on such a small, defenseless child. It took a good deal of physical control over the "little spark plug" to inflict all those injuries which left behind blood, indicating she was alive and maybe even aware of her suffering as she received them.